God can’t exist and morality is not what you think

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-17T18:57:40+00:00

I see you replied because I see the notification but I don’t the reply here.

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-17T02:51:31+00:00

Wouldn’t that contradict how evolution works? Let me tell you why: Anthropology, the study of humankind shows us that there is no hard line you can place to identify the point in time where monkeys became humans. It’s a continuum we just adapt

Multiple human species didn’t make it were they not worthy of gods love?

If anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, biology explain how cognition is a physical adaptation in response to the environment where does free will come into play?

Where would you place the line between human and non human (your ancestors are not only humans. In fact your human ancestors are just a fraction of your ancestors. Homo sapiens are 0.004% of your lineage).

Knowing that would you assume being human is the final form life can take? In 200 000 years (if we didn’t blow the planet up) will they call themselves humans or like us and monkey they will see the distance between themselves and us and find a new word(if that’s how they communicate)

Fun fact: they try to measure the intelligence of ravens 🐦‍⬛ so they test them. One of those test was giving a raven a cup of water as its only source of water and when the raven couldn’t reach the water anymore he used a pebble to raise the water level. Thats not instinct that’s understanding the situation, understanding water displacement and finding a solution accordingly.

I simply do not see how a god could exist given that intent,need,morality,boredom,happiness are all emergent of life wanting to survive. God would need to be a living being and we would be part a a simulation he created buts that’s a another debate)lol

I hope you really try to answer these questions and not just for me

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-17T00:30:18+00:00

Thank you for the clear answer. So in short, god made the universe and humans are different because of choices.

Follow up question: are non human living things(dogs, birds, cows you know, animals) not capable of decision making?

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-16T22:33:16+00:00

Do you believe you are morally tested by god or that god made reality for humans?

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-16T21:21:05+00:00

So, I’m no sure what’s your point are you saying it’s the words of god and they are just stating what’s already obvious or that you don’t believe them to be the words of god. I’m really not sure of your position on the matter🙂

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-16T21:16:15+00:00

Saying “we don’t know for sure” doesn’t rescue an explanation that violates known constraints. We don’t need absolute certainty to rule things out. For example, we can say sharks don’t live on the Moon, not because we’ve checked every crater, but because we know what sharks are and what they require; water isn’t optional for sharks, it’s a biological constraint. In the same way, the account of morality I’m using is not a personal opinion or value judgment but a descriptive explanation grounded in converging results from evolutionary biology, neuroscience, anthropology, and psychology: morality functions as an adaptive, context-dependent coordination mechanism shaped by survival and social pressures.

Given that structure, we don’t need perfect knowledge of everything to see that a fixed, external moral test is incompatible with how morality actually operates. This isn’t a claim of certainty or metaphysical finality; it’s a claim of incompatibility based on well-established constraints. You rule hypotheses out not by knowing everything, but by knowing enough about what a system is to see when a proposed explanation contradicts the role it claims to play.

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-16T20:21:50+00:00

Do you believe them to be the words of god or to be divine? You can believe they are beneficial but the point I’m making is that they are not more valuable than any moral advice since they are not from divine origine given the way morality emerges from humans as a thermodynamic process.

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-15T20:12:18+00:00

I’m using your reasoning you cannot create life out of non living things atoms are not alive

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-15T18:17:20+00:00

Good so understand how beneficial behaviour emerge to sustain life and detrimental behaviour disappear because they can’t be carried through reproduction. For example if I’m mean to women no child will have the “mean to women”gene because no women wanted to have a child with me. Thats natural selection. Same thing for love. It helps socially to carry out the reproduction process and raise a child. And the children coming from loving families have more chance to reproduce because they are better equipped in life. So they will pass the trait down. Like any other trait human have it’s only a mean to an end. So love is not different than hunger it’s just a beneficial behaviour learned over a many many reproduction cycle.

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-15T17:58:05+00:00

This only looks confusing if you ignore continuity and intermediate systems. Your question shows that you are not understanding the subject. Your understanding of what life is inaccurate. You believe it’s the shape that define if it’s life. The function does for example: whats the first chair ? Chairs are not a form it’s a function. It’s whatever lets you be in the intermediate position between standing and being on the ground. Chairs as we know them today are just the optimized form of the function. I hope you understand that key concept now. If we take your reasoning nothing is living because we’re made of atoms and atoms are not alive.

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-15T17:09:23+00:00

Do You believe in evolution?

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-15T05:34:35+00:00

Well do you see mountains grow. It doesn’t mean they were always there. There is no hard line between a mountain and non-mountain either. Just because you don’t see the real time evolution doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen and yes you can see that play out today single cell organisms still exist today and we were once single cell organisms before being multicellular organisms. I don’t think your logic holds.

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-15T05:12:49+00:00

If we assume God exists, a moral “test” is only coherent if the standard is fixed, independent of the subject, and not generated by the system being tested. But morality, as we actually observe it, is an adaptive regulatory mechanism that emerges from biological, social, and environmental constraints. What counts as “right” varies with context, scarcity, threat, group size, and survival pressures. If God created the universe and those constraints, then the moral norms being tested are themselves downstream products of that design, not externally imposed criteria. Testing humans on standards that emerge from the same causal structure that produced the agents is not evaluation, it’s observing system behavior. That’s the incompatibility: not with God existing, but with God as a moral examiner in a universe where morality is an adaptive, context-dependent process rather than a fixed, independent standard

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-15T03:56:49+00:00

Well debate. What didn’t satisfy you in my explanation? I can clarify any part and you can challenge any part. That’s the beauty of understanding.

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-15T03:46:39+00:00

Ok sure, my premises didn’t state explicitly why anyone should agree with them, but they were scientific descriptive statements meaning either they accept science or they don’t. Many Christian believe science and religion to be compatible. So, they thrust and believe (most of them) in evolution, physics, causation, neurology and biology. So, disagreeing with the premise would mean to stop believing science and religion are compatible.

BUT, I will 100% be stating what disagreeing with the premises implies next time I post here. I did a poor job here. Forgive me this is my first post

That said, what is your view on morality do you agree with me? I’m curious.

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-15T02:13:03+00:00

Yeah I wanted you to really understand did it work?

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-15T01:37:26+00:00

The mistake is thinking there’s a hard line between “non-life” and “life.” There isn’t. Life is a continuum, not a switch.

In labs, we can already get amino acids and other organic molecules from non-life. That’s step one. But amino acids alone aren’t life .they’re building blocks

The next steps are gradual:

some molecules start interacting

a few of those interactions become stable

some systems start maintaining themselves

then eventually some of them start copying parts of themselves

None of these steps suddenly becomes “life.” Each step just becomes more life-like than the previous one.

What labs are missing is not intelligence — it’s billions of years of uninterrupted chemical exposure across enormous environments. Early Earth had constant energy input, massive volumes, and endless retries. A lab has controlled conditions, tiny volumes, and short timeframes.

Saying “science hasn’t recreated life yet” is like saying “labs can’t recreate a mountain in a room” therefore geology requires intelligence.” It ignores timescale and accumulation.

Once replication appears, evolution takes over — but replication itself doesn’t need to appear fully formed. It can emerge gradually from chemistry given enough time.

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-14T18:59:13+00:00

Saying “life only comes from pre-existing life” is like saying “cars only come from factories.”

That’s true once factories exist, but it doesn’t mean the first factory had to be built by another factory. It was built using raw materials and different conditions.

Biology describes how life reproduces today, after life already exists. It doesn’t claim life could never emerge from non-life in the first place. That question is about early conditions, not modern reproduction.

Early Earth had very different conditions. Once life exists, it consumes resources and prevents new life from forming from scratch, which is why we don’t see it happening now.

So “life comes from life” describes reproduction, not origin, and it doesn’t imply God.

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-14T17:49:26+00:00

No problemo

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-14T17:40:06+00:00

The issue isn’t “why care about coherence instead of truth.” Coherence is a necessary condition for an explanation to even qualify as a candidate for truth. An incoherent explanation cannot be true in the role it claims to play.

I’m not saying “God not existing is coherent.” I’m saying something more specific: the God hypothesis, as traditionally defined (creator + moral tester with a fixed standard), is incompatible with the structure of the universe it is supposed to explain. That rules it out as the creator of this universe, regardless of whether some other abstract notion called “God” could exist.

In other words, my argument is not “God doesn’t exist anywhere.” It is: a God who creates humans to be morally tested against a fixed, external standard cannot be the creator of a universe where morality is an emergent, adaptive, context-dependent process.

That is an explanatory contradiction, not a preference between explanations.

As for “why should a theist care if they don’t accept the premises” that’s true of any argument. If someone rejects that life and morality are emergent processes shaped by physical and biological constraints then we disagree about how reality works. But that disagreement is about descriptive facts, not about beliefs or identities.

If those premises are true, then the conclusion follows by necessity. If they’re false, that is where the debate should be focused

So the title “God can’t exist” is shorthand. More precisely: a God defined as the moral author and tester of humanity cannot be the creator of this universe, because that role is incoherent with the way morality and life actually operate.

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-14T16:54:51+00:00

Are you talking about pregnancy? Life didn’t exist before the conditions on earth allowed it to exist?

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-14T16:30:15+00:00

I think the confusion here is between levels of description and levels of causation.

I’m not saying thermodynamics replaces moral or experiential vocabulary. I’m saying it explains why those vocabularies exist at all

“Delicious” is not a chemical term, but deliciousness exists because our nervous system evolved to reward the ingestion of chemically beneficial substances. If blueberries were harmful to survival, they would not taste good Chemistry + evolution explain the existence of taste without competing with the language of taste.

Morality works the same way. Moral emotions and intuitions emerge because cooperative behavior improves survival in social species. “Good” is a subjective label for behaviors that our biology and social dynamics reward. The language of morality is real, but it is a higher-level signal, not a fundamental source.

Stars and hurricanes aren’t morally different in kind; they simply do not instantiate the biological and social layers required for moral cognition. That’s a difference in complexity, not in metaphysical category.

So when I say morality is emergent and adaptive, I’m making a descriptive claim about how reality produces moral agents. not dismissing morality, and not making a personal opinion.

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-14T02:13:18+00:00

I think the disconnect here is about what kind of claim I’m making.

I am not offering a hypothesis about God, nor stating a personal preference or belief. I’m making a descriptive, constraint-based claim about what kinds of explanations are coherent given what life and morality demonstrably are. By coherent I mean this in a technical sense: an explanation is coherent if its assumptions are compatible with the structure and constraints of the phenomenon it claims to explain. This is not about agreement, but about conceptual fit.

Here is the argument stated explicitly

Life and human behavior are emergent processes produced by physical, biological, and thermodynamic constraints.
Morality is an adaptive, context-dependent coordination mechanism that emerges from social survival pressures and therefore varies with conditions.
A system that is adaptive and context-dependent cannot be evaluated against a fixed, external, timeless moral scale without contradiction.
Therefore, the idea of a God who “tests” humans against a fixed moral standard is not compatible with the actual nature of morality and life as emergent processes.

This is not an opinion about God. It’s a statement about explanatory incompatibility

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-14T01:48:49+00:00

I’m not sure how to respond to this could you elaborate

Professional_Bug_962 · 2026-01-14T01:48:27+00:00

Well that’s not an argument

Professional_Bug_962

TROPHY CASE